NOVA: "The Bible's Buried Secrets" Airs Tonight

Don't forget, tonight's episode of NOVA is the long-anticipated "The Bible's Buried Secrets":

In this landmark two-hour special, NOVA takes viewers on a fascinating scientific journey that began 3,000 years ago and continues today. The film presents the latest archeological scholarship from the Holy Land to explore the beginnings of modern religion and the origins of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Old Testament.

This archeological detective story tackles some of the biggest questions in biblical studies: Where did the ancient Israelites come from? Who wrote the Bible, when, and why? How did the worship of one God—the foundation of modern Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—emerge?

"'The Bible's Buried Secrets' is both a scientific detective story and dramatic adventure that digs deeply into the Bible and the history of the ancient Israelites through the archeological artifacts they left behind," said Paula S. Apsell, NOVA Senior Executive Producer...

— Source

Readers may recall that this program has the American Family Association foaming at the mouth. In July, Don Wildmon declared jihad against PBS over it, urging his clusterflock to contact their congressional representation in protest and use this particular program as an example of why PBS should no longer receive public funding. The fundienutters are upset, you see, that the program uses scientific methods and reasoning in making the outrageous claims (if you're a fundamentalist religious true-believer with your head lodged firmly up your Dark Ages) that the Bible was written by numerous authors, that the stories are the continuations of pre-existing myths, that monotheism didn't spring into existence at the beginning of time, etc.

All of which is very good reason to watch the show and send a contribution to PBS in support of an effort to investigate reality instead of simply furthering superstition.

Sphere: Related Content

On California's Proposition 8, or What the Hell is Oozing Out of Our Ground

In case you haven't seen this video already, this redolent summation of the depths of ignorance and paranoia, watch it now. There will be a quiz.

As much as I find the video itself appalling insofar as what it reveals about just how much the stupid can burn, the recent passage of California's Proposition 8 and similar referenda in places like Florida, Arizona and Arkansas leave me asking the same question the benighted woman narrating it asked. What the hell is oozing out of our ground?

There is a meanness in these new laws, a cruelty that is most loudly voiced by the fact that California will not only put a halt to future same-sex marriages but there are those who are now attempting to void those which have already taken place. Surprise, surprise... they're based in Florida:

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based conservative legal group, said last week that if Prop. 8 passes, Liberty Counsel would seek to invalidate all same-sex marriages already performed in California. Randy Thomasson, president of the Sacramento-based SaveCalifornia.com, said his group would support any lawsuit.

"One of the main reasons for passing Prop. 8 was to have real marriage be a role model for the next generation," he said. "Since these are a bunch of false marriages and false marriage licenses, they are bad examples for little children."

— Source

Anyone who still harbors doubt that much of Florida is a percolating, roiling bowl of fundamentalist mythological contagion need look no further than the anthropoid vector of pestilence that is Matthew Staver and his Orwellianly-monikered Liberty Council to put those doubts to rest. Staver, by the way, is a dean at ignorance-factory Liberty University.

That there is no hope that someone like Staver will ever attain to a degree of empathy reminiscent of the better parts of the human race is without question. There are poisonous things in this world and there will always be poisonous things in this world. The question is not whether fundamentally sociopathic, inherently divisive and morally bankrupt people like Staver and Falwell and Don Wildmon can ever be reformed. I would submit that they cannot. Such people will always remain self-made enemies of the culture upon which they have declared war. This is the point of their existence. They thrive on pain and seek the increase of human suffering as a sign of upcoming divine intervention that will usher in a time when the better part of humanity will be tortured for all eternity by their invisible and vindictive father-figure in the sky. They feed on the decay, the hate, the division and the ignorance produced by their activities as surely as any leech slithering from a festering fen seeks to cling to and suck from the femoral artery of some victim. They are beyond all reproach in the perfection of their destructiveness.

In short, they are what is "oozing out of our ground." Still, they and those like them could not alone have passed the barbarisms that are these new laws, including Proposition 8. They must have had complicity in their efforts to corrupt the notion of human rights and the role of government intervention in the lives of others. I do not think that everyone who voted for new laws like Proposition 8 is a leech like Staver, but I do think that many of these people have been deceived, and deception is possible only in the presence of ignorance. The notion that people who prefer sexual interaction with members of their own gender would be in favor of pederasty, bestiality or any number of other outrageous perversions is precisely a product of that ignorance.

These warriors against rational and inclusive culture exploit this ignorance in several ways, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they exploit several varieties of ignorance. Let's face it — most Americans don't know many gay people, or at least aren't aware that they know any. To the bulk of the populace, gay people are an unknown. They're something that doesn't exist as a portion of their community as integral to its proper functioning as any heterosexual individual. They're something that one sees in the media, frequently as a caricature. They're an abstraction; gay people aren't human beings so much as a phantasm that is somebody else's "problem." By keeping them in the abstract, anything can be laid upon them. Gay people can be made out to be abnormal, villainous, scheming... in short, hobgoblins coming from some other reality, some other universe, with malicious intent, like some shadowy horde poised at the border and ready to sack the little villages in which far too many Americans fancy themselves to live. The American Family Association is particularly adept at exploiting this strain of ignorance, peddling videos like They're Coming to Your Town. The probability is that "they" are already in your town, have been there all along, and that your town — and any town — is all the better for it.

They exploit, too, an ignorance that puts forth the idea that the highest purpose of human existence is procreation. It's an assertion I see made time and time again — that homosexuality is a perversion because it doesn't result in reproduction, and that reproduction is the goal which gives purpose to all living things, thus making homosexuality itself a force that runs counter to life. What could be worse than that? What reasonable person could be opposed to the continuation of life itself!

The thing is, when one actually looks at life, that's not what we actually see, particularly as biological individualism gives way to social organization. In any number of truly social insects, for example, the vast bulk of the members of the society do not reproduce, yet they contribute essentially to the continuation of their society. When cognition enters the picture, sex often becomes less bound to reproduction and more a means of enforcing social bonds, too. Even among humans, we do not remember the important figures throughout our history because of the number of offspring they had. Indeed, most Americans would be hard-pressed to rattle off the names of the children of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or John Adams. We don't remember how many children Einstein had. Would it make any difference to us how we view such people if they'd never reproduced at all? We humans are not bound to our biology in the way that animals are bound to theirs. We can think, we can create, and we can go far beyond the limitations of our bodies. To say that the greatest achievement to which any one of us may attain is mere reproduction is to reduce all of mankind to animals in a menagerie. It robs all of us, even those who promulgate this nonsense, of the basic dignity of what it is to be human. We are more than molecular machines who eat and shit and fuck, and if we are not then we may as well tear down all the churches and all the laboratories and all the museums and stop distracting ourselves from this allegedly greatest good that any of us can spew forth from our various orifices. I, for one, think that we can be more than mere gamete factories. I think more of humanity, and I have a crazy notion that even those who have fallen under the contrary viewpoint would as well if they stopped and considered the sum total of civilization instead of having fallen prey to those who have declared war upon the better angels of human nature.

The questions that Proposition 8 and these similar referenda raise for me, and perhaps now for you, too, is whether we Americans will choose to see ourselves as something debased. Are we the product of a history that has finally cut us loose from the muck of basic biology, that allows us to aspire, to achieve, to no longer be identified in terms of merely what we contribute to some gene pool... or are we the product of some long-ago fall from grace that leaves every individual stained with sin? Will we use our powers of imagination and abstraction to cast one another as enemies, as "outsider" and "insider," to divide ourselves into camps that deserve to dwell either in sunlight or shadow based upon some accident of biology or — perish the thought — even some personal choice that involves no lives apart from our own, or will we use these boons to go beyond these superficial differences to find out that we are all essentially the same, that we all want the same things, and that we are all deserving of the same rights to associate with whom we will, to love whom we will, and to find in each of us that which we have to offer to the rest of us and so to allow every other member of our society the right to do the same?

We know what the Stavers and Wildmons of this country have to say on the matter. They are believers in the essentially impurity or each of us, a blood libel that began in a garden at the confluence of rivers. I suppose we know equally well (especially if you've read through all of this!) what those of us who don't believe in any such "fall from grace" and "original sin" think about it. But there is a great mass of American flesh and blood and mind between these two extremes that live their lives without ever seeing the effect that their decisions about "sanctity" have upon those who now must bear the weight of the stigma that they attach to them. Would they reach the same conclusions if they knew these people? If they saw what a same-sex marriage actually looked like in the light of day? If they came to know, on a personal basis, that the hearts and minds of the people who have entered into them were no different from their own save for the gender of the object of affection?

It is easy enough to be cruel toward an abstraction. Despite our fallibility, though, I think that most of us could not be so callous when called to look into the eyes of fellow human beings. Doing this will be a first great stride in doing away with not only one of the final malingering divisions in American social philosophy, but also in ridding ourselves of a pernicious war that allows a few men to exploit the shortcoming of many. America can be better than this. Just as some little bit of knowledge about the principles of refraction would remove the paranoid fears of the silly woman who made the video that began this entry, so would a little knowledge about what a same-sex marriage really is would remove the paranoia that the possibility "they're coming to your town" portends something terrible.

I am privileged to live in a place, one of only two states in this country, that allows same-sex marriage. I'm thinking of a way in which I might be able to use that happy coincidence in such a way as to lend some aid to those who do not enjoy it. I'll write more about that soon. It is enough to say, at this moment, that I feel like I have to do more about this than I have done until this moment.

Sphere: Related Content

Human Evolution: Natural Selection at Work

A hyphal tip to Girl-Geek Academic for this video. It explains perhaps too much about modern human evolution, particularly in my own country, and why it sometimes seems that Jerry Springer might just be in charge of our future. It's all about which traits are selected for and against.

I feel that I understand groups like the American Family Association much better now.

Sphere: Related Content

AFA vs. Hallmark: Gay Marriage Greeting Card Flap Illustrates Fundamentalist Stupidity

It really makes my day when I receive a "Dear Manmeat" letter from Don Wildmon, and the one I received yesterday afternoon was a particularly fun one. The American Family Association is in a lather because Hallmark has started selling greeting cards for same-sex marriages. Now, the friends of gay people can send the same sort of overpriced cardboard bits of sentiment that the friends of straight people can send. The horror!

Hallmark defends gay marriage cards - Urge your local Hallmark store to refuse to carry them

Take Action!
Urge your local Hallmark store owner to join others in refusing to carry Hallmark gay marriage cards in their stores.

You can find your local Hallmark store contact information here. [Note: I have changed the link to one directly to Hallmark; the one in the email tracks the clickthrough to give the AFA numbers it can claim as people objecting to Hallmark's policy even if the person clicking supports Hallmark's decision.]

Please be polite, but firm when you contact your local store.

August 25, 2008
Dear Manmeat,

Hallmark is reinforcing their decision to carry gay marriage cards with a message to supporters of traditional marriage – buzz off!

According to their website, corporate emails, and in response to phone calls, Hallmark is telling those who contact the company it will carry “cards that use specific language and images appropriate for same-sex wedding ceremonies.”

Same sex marriage is not recognized in 48 states, but Hallmark has chosen to become a corporate advocate in advancing homosexual marriage.

However, some local Hallmark store owners are refusing to carry them. Earlier this week, Jordan's Hallmark, which owns seven Hallmark Gold Crown stores in Idaho, announced its stores will not carry gay marriage cards in their stores.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?

Sincerely,



Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Ah, the dumbness, how shall I count the ways?

Let's start with the assertion that Hallmark shouldn't sell gay marriage cards because same-sex marriages aren't recognized in 48 states. How many states recognize bar mitzvahs with legislation that recognizes 13 year old boys as adults? And the survey says... zero. Precisely no states consider thirteen year olds as something other than minors, despite the fact that Jewish religious custom proclaims them to be adults. Hallmark had better stop selling greeting cards for that occasion. The same number of states also recognize officially your daughter's third birthday, your wedding anniversary, or the fact that your nephew got an A in math last year. In short, whether or not a given state has a law recognizing something is absolutely meaningless in this context. Hallmark is in the business of selling greeting cards, not of marking the passage of laws.

But let's pretend for a moment that Hallmark only sells greeting cards for occasions that are sanctioned by state laws. If this were the case, then Hallmark would sell same-sex marriage cards only in states where such unions were recognized, which is only a few. Not the two states which this latest "Dear Manmeat" letter asserts, however, but fourteen states in all which recognize gay marriage in some form or another, whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union" with the same rights as different-sex marriage or with some more limited number of rights. That's nearly a quarter of all the United States; a redundant statement to make, I know, but since the AFA's Grand Poobah appears incapable of distinguishing between two and fourteen, we shouldn't take for granted that he knows how many states there are.

But let's sink deeper into the AFA's fantasy world and pretend that there really are only two states — Massachusetts and California — that recognize gay marriage in some form. Should Hallmark not sell appropriate greeting cards for gay weddings in the other 48 states? Well, I don't know. Do people sometimes mail cards from one state to another? Hmmmm... anybody have statistics? This one's a real head-scratcher. I mean, it's not like someone living in New Mexico might have a gay friend in Massachusetts, right? Nobody from Florida could possibly know anyone in California! Surely, God has commanded that there shall be no mixing between states upon penalty of smiting.

Perhaps the most shocking news to Wildmon and Co. might be that (gasp) same-sex weddings take place even in states where gay marriages aren't recognized. Believe it or not, for a lot of people who get married, the main thing is commitment to one another, not the question of legal status. The fact that there are states heartless enough to deny the right of one human being to sit at the hospital bedside of a sick or dying loved one notwithstanding, people who happen to be of the same biological gender still have ceremonies to declare their mutual commitment in places that don't provide legal recognition of that commitment. Note that none of Hallmark's cards, for this or any other occasion, include phrases like "Congratulations on the government recognition of your relationship." Greeting cards mark personal occasions, not changes in legal status.

Case in point: a few years ago, two gay friends of mine and LL's had a wedding ceremony and reception in St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, and their official civil union had actually taken place in Vermont. They did that in full knowledge of the fact that they would not have anything like the rights and privileges of other married couples when they returned to Florida... but they did it anyhow, as a statement to one another. As the majority of this couple's friends and family lived in America's nethermost realm, however, they also had a purely symbolic ceremony and reception when they got back home. Finding an appropriate greeting card for the occasion was a matter of some deliberation, and having had cards like those Hallmark now sells at that time would have been quite helpful. So, whether Florida had or had not recognized the legal status of this couple at the time, I would have bought such a card to go along with the very nice picnic set that LL and I gave them as a wedding present. You see, there's a difference between a committed relationship, a marriage and a wedding. I don't suppose that a bunch of dunces like the AFA, who apparently can't even count up to 14 successfully, would understand a concept as abstract as that.

So if Hallmark is really telling the AFA's deluded Paul Reveres, galloping clumsily through our cultural countryside and shouting their fool heads off that "The homos are coming! The homos are coming!", to "buzz off," then all I can do is mark the fact that they've made the right decision in this instance. I would have used a different four-letter word than "buzz," and it's quite possible that Hallmark did, too. The AFA's membership likes to pretend that they're too timid to use the more appropriate word "fuck" for "buzz," although any of us who have been on the receiving end of a fundienutter's vitriol knows what kind of language they really use when they think nobody's looking (and they can always pray for forgiveness, which they "know" they'll get... which is a big part of what makes them such immense pricks in the first place).

And about the graphics that accompanied today's daily dose of Donald Wildmon's "meanmeat" fantasy life; am I the only one confused by this? Is an image of two tuxedos too horrible to contemplate? Is that all it takes to shock the flock? Is the email implying with the second graphic that the 12 apostles were involved in gay marriages? I mean, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were, and I wouldn't think less of them if it were the case that John had jammed his joystick up James. It's hard to think less of something than not at all. Nonetheless, I'm a bit surprised that Don Wildmon would be promulgating that sort of thing as historical fact. Then again, I was a bit surprised when I got an email from him asking me to make his dreams come true on a Saturday night in March, too.

In the end, like most of these moon-faced assassins of joy, Wildmon just needs reassurance that even with gay people getting married, he'll someday find the right man to fulfill his failingly-suppressed needs. He's got the same basic problem that all Christian literalists have. They've signed on to a cult that, on the one hand, is filled to the rafters with homoerotic imagery and on the other hand tells them to disregard the attraction they feel toward it, a conflict sloppily tied up with the promise that if they can just wait for it long enough that they'll get to sit back and watch the pain they've inflicted upon themselves all their lives acted out as sadistic fantasy by stern judges and bloodthirsty horsemen who will torture and behead those who actually enjoyed life. Without the sadism of the apocalyptic vision, which they demand we all believe is a truth rather than the product of asceticism driven to the point of hallucinatory madness, none of this pays off in the end. It is only through the infliction of suffering upon the other that they can derive meaning from the torture they inflict upon themselves.

Attacking greeting cards is no big deal when you're determined to spend eternity lending a hand at driving red-hot pokers into the eye sockets of real people, after all.

Sphere: Related Content

Massachusetts Will Allow Same-Sex Marriages for Non-Residents

The 1913 law passed to prevent interracial marriages in Massachusetts, which went unenforced until invoked by Mitt Romney in 2004 as a means to prevent same-sex marriage, now has both feet in the grave. Our state Senate voted to repeal Massachusetts General Law Title III, Chapter 207, Section 11 on July 16. Today, the House did the same:

House repeals 1913 marriage law

...The Massachusetts House voted 118-35 Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law that bans couples from marrying in the state if the unions would not be legal in their own states.

The Senate also voted for the repeal earlier this month, and Gov. Deval Patrick has said he would approve it...

By the end of the week, perhaps even tomorrow, Patrick will sign the bill and a piece of bad legislation, marginalizing and bigoted from the outset, will be no more. Any two unrelated people of the age of consent will be able to get married in Massachusetts.

On July 10, the American Family Association's feckless leader said that if same-sex couples could get married in California after Election Day, the Culture War would be over and that his side would have lost. This was the reason he gave:

The vote in California, Wildmon explains, will affect the entire nation. "California is a big dam, holding back the flood -- and if you take down the dam in California, it's going to flood 49 other states," he illustrates. "It will destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years, and with that the cultural decline that normally would follow."

— Source

However, if — no, not if but when — the 1913 law is repealed in Massachusetts this week, will not Wildmon's dam (and probably a few blood vessels) have burst? Even if Proposition 8 were to be approved in California, as increasingly unlikely as that may be, will it matter? The couple that would have gotten married there can still get married here.

I still wish I could believe it, you know. I still don't, though. Don Wildmon will go back on his word. He makes far too good a living at spreading hate to ever capitulate to a little thing like a victory for love.

I'm proud to be a Massachusetter Massachusettian Massachusettan Masshole.

Sphere: Related Content

The AFA Wants to Bury "The Bible's Buried Secrets"

The American Family Association’s Don Wildmon is once again up in arms about reality’s failure to confirm the literal truth of his Biblical beliefs. The PBS program Nova is producing an episode entitled “The Bible’s Buried Secrets.” While there’s no link yet on Nova’s web page for information about the episode, some of the archaeologists involved with it have commented and it sounds like this will be standard fare for the long-running documentary series.

The paucity of specific information about the show hasn’t stopped ol’ Don from bursting a blood vessel or two about the reporting of many of the contradictions known to exist between Biblical stories and the archaeological record. He was kind enough to share his concerns with me in his most recent “Dear Manmeat” e-mail:

Dear Manmeat,

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS), probably the most liberal network in America, will present a program this fall that says the Old Testament is a bunch of made-up stories that never happened. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" says the Bible is not true. It is scheduled to air on November 18.

Producer Paula Apsell said: "...It's (The Bible's Buried Secrets) designed for intelligent people who are willing to change their mind. …it will give intelligent people who want to read the Bible in a modern way a chance. If we insist on reading the Bible literally, in 25 years, nobody will read it any longer."

Among highlights of "The Bible's Buried Secrets":

• The Old Testament was written in the sixth century BC and hundreds of authors contributed.
  
• Abraham, Sarah and their offspring didn't exist.
  
• There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.
  
• Monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.
  
• The Israelites were actually Canaanites.
  
• The Israelites believed that God had a wife.

I have often said that PBS should not receive tax dollars. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" is simply one more reason Congress should stop supporting PBS with our tax dollars. Congress gives PBS hundreds of millions of tax dollars to help support the network.

I find Wildmon’s use of the word “liberal” rather revealing in this context. There is nothing particularly liberal about reporting the facts uncovered by investigation and scientific research. The points that Wildmon brings up are no more biased toward some political philosophy than would be a statement that the earth revolves around the sun. The fact is, we have no evidence that Abraham was a real person nor have there been archaeological finds indicating that ancient Israelis ever inhabited Egypt, built anything there, and fled the place to spend 40 years wandering the Sinai. We do know that monotheism was not the primitive condition of religion; there is no doubt whatsoever that early beliefs were polytheistic. One can easily point to any number of early religions including those of the Near East, and the struggle of early monotheistic religions against the prevailing polytheism is well documented not only in the archaeological record (c.f. Akhenaten) but in the bible itself (c.f. the Golden Calf episode in Exodus itself). Monotheism clearly took centuries, if not millennia, to emerge. The Israelites did believe that Jehovah had a bride, or at least the feminine component. Her name is Shekinah and she is referred to in Jewish texts such as the Talmud wherein she is said to grant the power of prophecy. The mystical, kabalistic work Zohar, a work of particular importance to modern day Hasidic Jewish sects, also makes reference to Shekinah.

Wildmon’s apoplexy over a program of the nature of “The Bible’s Buried Secrets” exemplifies the very problem with Fundamentalism and its insistence on literal reading of Biblical mythology. Empirical observation simply does not support the historical accuracy of stories such as that of Abraham or Moses. When confronted by this, fundamentalists twist the presence of archaeological evidence that contradicts the tales upon which they found their belief as a conspiracy concocted to overthrow their religion. Since the stories must literally be true in order for their faith to be justified, anything from the outside world that fails to support those stories must be something manufactured by the forces of darkness. These days, the forces of darkness are personified by a vague application of the term “liberal.” Taken to its extreme, this profoundly twisted and emotionally immature refusal to face the facts is turned into a delusion of persecution. Archaeologists aren’t simply reporting what they have found but attacking the adherents of fundamentalist Christianity. Such flawed reasoning is applied to every aspect of the real world which exists beyond that covers of any particular religious text; it exists as much in fundamentalist Islam, Hinduism or Animism as it does in the literalist form of Christianity. It is equally wrong, equally immature, and frankly equally stupid no matter which religious context one chooses.

In fact, the reaction by Wildmon to a program that neither he nor anyone else outside of those directly involved with it has seen, is a slightly more sophisticated form of the toddler’s argument from “la la la, I’m not listening.” Wildmon knows that his followers weren’t likely to watch anything broadcast on PBS to begin with, but that’s not enough. Wildmon wants to shut down the very possibility that anyone could be influenced by a review of real evidence. He doesn’t even find it necessary to provide a link to any sources that his readers could check and potentially make up their own minds because that in itself would be contrary to fundamentalist thought. Instead, Wildmon is confident that he can simply make assertions and rouse his faithful to action and have them clap their hands not only over their own ears, but over yours, mine and everyone else’s. It’s not enough for a fundamentalist to choose for him or herself not to consider an argument; the fundamentalist feels compelled to prevent anyone else from doing so.

It should be apparent not only from the ridiculous mental deficiency spewed into American culture by Wildmon, but from the history of other cultures that have become dominated by fundamentalist religious thought, that there is no difference between fundamentalism and totalitarianism. The basis for the will to power over the mind of every individual in the fundamentalism-plagued society may be different, but the totalitarian heart of theocracy differs from that of fascism only by its initial motivation and not at all in the ends it seeks. It doesn’t take much bending to twist a cross into a swastika. The first force applied in doing so is the attempt to decide to what information the people will have access.

There is no evidence to support, and much to contradict, the assertions of fundamentalist religion. This is not the fault of some conspiracy but the reflection of reality. The mythology of fundamentalist Christianity is no different than the mythology of Hellenism.

Having said all this, perhaps the next thing the reader might wish to do is to actually look at what the people involved in making “The Bible’s Buried Secrets” have to say about their program.

…Biblical archaeologists William Dever and Carol Meyers talked about the special and addressed the fact that many people will have problems with a film that claims to challenge viewers "to think about the Bible in an entirely new way," according to "NOVA" senior executive producer Paula Aspell. She said the show will examines the message and the meaning of the Bible as it looks for a historical core. "What emerges is provocative new evidence surrounding the origins of monotheism and the ethical code that accompanies it, ideas that change the world and resonate for us today as it did then."

Biblical archaeologist William Dever said the film is controversial, "but it ends on a positive note. It should bring to laypeople a new appreciation of the literature and the history of the Bible. And I think even professional biblical scholars might learn something from it…”

— Source

Sphere: Related Content

AFA's Wildmon Says Culture Wars to End in November

Dr. Donald Wildmon is founder of the American Family Association and an organizer of the Arlington Group. He says passage of the California marriage amendment is critical.

"If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I'm afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost," says Wildmon, a 30-year veteran of the culture war. "I've never said that publicly until now -- but that's just the reality of the fact.

"If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then the culture war is over and we've lost -- and gradually, secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society," he adds.

— Don Wildmon, July 10, 2008

Californians are likely to uphold the right to gay marriage in the state by voting against a ballot measure that seeks to override a court ruling allowing same-sex unions, poll results showed on Friday.

The Field Poll survey firm found 51 percent of voters oppose the measure, which proposes an amendment to the state's constitution recognizing marriage as only between a man and woman, while 42 percent were in favor...

— California opposes move to ban gay marriage: poll, Reuters, July 18, 2008

Could it be? Will the defeat of Proposition 8 in California really mark the end of the Taliban's influence so-called Culture War in America? Will Don Wildmon quietly close the doors and disconnect the phone banks of the American Family Association, pack his bags and move to whatever country is the Christian fundamentalist equivalent of Afghanistan circa 1999? Will Ann Coulter have to take a part-time job as a hat rack in order to make ends meet? Will Bill O'Reilly at long last answer to his true calling and become a Muppet? Will I actually live to see the day that the shrilling of those who use deity as a periscope to peer between the bedsheets of America and pass judgment upon what they find are no longer met with microphones?

I would like to believe it. For once, I wish I could believe something that oozed from betwixt the labia of Don "Dear Manmeat" Wildmon. I am not that naive, however. I know all too well that the eventual defeat of California's Proposition 8 will only trigger off more excited ejaculations from the radical right. I wish that I could believe that a day was coming as soon as this November that would mark the end of more than 30 years of the degradation of the promise of personal liberty upon which America was founded. I hope fervently to see a time in this country where whatever quirk of nature or nurture or personal choice or whatever it is that decides which gender attracts and which does not attract some person ceases to be a deciding factor in what share of the rights, privileges and responsibilities to which that person will be admitted. There has only ever been one issue in this Culture War, and it is that of who gets to define morality. It has always been about whether our culture will take it upon itself to decide on absolutes that would be applied to acts undertaken by consent of the parties involved that have no effect upon those who do not participate.

I want America's obsession with other people's relationships and other people's sex lives to end. I would like to see Wildmon's prediction about the end of the effort to impose a Christian shariah upon America come to pass. For all of the admonitions about America being a Christian country, I don't see the Wal-Marts and McDonald's empty on Sundays. As far as I'm aware, remembering to keep the sabbath per the third commandment doesn't mention anything about shopping being exempt and yet stores find enough customers to make it worth their while to stay open and nobody is putting propositions on state ballots to change this. Let's not kid ourselves as to what this has always been about and what the nature of this country is and what the nature of the Wildmons and Hagees and Robertsons of this land is.

There isn't enough space between these people and Fred Phelps to pass a thread as it is. The death of Proposition 8 will only push them further into the realms of fury. These Christian Culture Warriors have already come quite close to proclaiming that "God Hates America." What did they say when 3,000 innocent people died horribly in a Manhattan skyscraper? What was the reaction when a hurricane decimated New Orleans? What was it that Ray Comfort has to say about the reason that people are losing their homes and their livelihoods in the conflagrations that have dotted California — and largely in conservative areas, mind you, but it serves his purpose to make such statements?

They all come down to exactly the same thing that Phelps' incestuous little clan waves about on placards at the funerals of those who were shoved into danger's way at the behest of one of Evangelicism's own in the first place. "God hates America."

A little bit of prediction here. If (I think it is a matter of when, not if, but I'll let it go for now) Proposition 8 is defeated, we won't see the end of the American Culture War. We'll simply have Don Wildmon making some bizarre statement to the effect that Jehovah has come down from on high to whisper into his ear and urge him to stand and fight. We'll hear the screechings of the usual harridans and bullyboys as they pray publically for California to fall into the sea. That's all we'll get.

I do think there will come a time when this ends, when America finally tires of this stupid game of ruining people's lives and that last shudder finally runs down its collective spine as it finally shrugs off the last of these hate peddlers and casts them into the obscurity their ilk inhabited in more reasonable eras. I don't know whether that will be within the remaining 20 or 30 or 40 years of my lifetime, but everything I have seen, from the ascendancy of the Moral Majority to the present day, tells me that the defeat of one proposition in California won't be the end of this. I know that what Wildmon is doing is telling a lie to rally his stormtroopers. All is fair, after all, in love and war.

Someday, perhaps there will be a Culture Love instead of a Culture War. That day will not come upon us in November 2008.

Sphere: Related Content

Don Wildmon and the AFA: More Songs About Religion and Food

With the Crackertholic Crusade going on yesterday, I almost forgot about a second incident of a raving religious reichsfuhrer dictating dietary do's and don'ts. While Bill Donohue was fretting about the failure to swallow Jesus, Don Wildmon was spreading the word that McDonald's is eeeeeeeeevil. You guessed it, I've gotten another Dear Manmeat letter from Donny, and he is ever so righteously furious at McDonald's for failing to roll over and capitulate to his edicts.

Dear Manmeat,

Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald's has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate.

I kind of see why Wildmon is upset here. McDonald's is putting far too much emphasis on hate. They've left out the fear and ignorance that Wildmon has worked so long and hard to cultivate. Shame on you, McDonald's. Give credit where credit is due.

AFA has asked for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants because of the company’s promotion of the gay agenda. AFA asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald’s refused.

And McDonald's did the right thing by refusing to obey your nonsense. Oh, that horrible gay agenda... demanding equal protection and recognition under the law. The humanities! When will McDonald's adopt the Fundamentalist agenda and declare Don Wildmon the fearless leader he knows himself to be? They should name a hamburger after him.... you know, the Mississippi Meat Mound or something. Or better yet, they could team him up with Bill Donohue and make a hamburger with Jesus stamped on the bun. They could make it the only item on their menu not available for take-out orders and then beat anyone who tries to smuggle it out of the restaurant. And they could certify it "100% gay-free" and attach a cute little slogan to it. Something like "Put a Mississippi Meat Mound in your mouth and swallow... but it's not gay." I dunno, something like that. What am I, a marketing consultant?

In response to the boycott, McDonald's spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying "...hatred has no place in our culture." McDonald's has decided to adopt the "hate" theme used by gay activist groups for years.

Hey, maybe gay activists use the hate theme (why the quotes?) because you... you know... hate them? Just a guess here, but perhaps the videos the AFA sells about hordes of homosexuals raping and pillaging quaint little towns that never left the 1950's has something to do with it.

Whitman went on to say, "We stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment." Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring gays or how gay employees are treated. It is about McDonald's choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda.

I think Whitman addressed the issue a lot better than that weasely bit of sleight-of-mind that this note attempts to foist off upon the hateful, fearful and ignorant. I didn't notice Whitman saying anything about employing gay people. He's talking about "a society free of discrimination and harassment," not "a restaurant free of discrimination and harassment." Whitman was being as honest as a PR person can be expected to be. Wildmon is simply attempting to twist the minds of his followers a little bit more than they were already twisted.

McDonald's donated $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in exchange for membership and a seat on the group’s board of directors. The NGLCC lobbies Congress in support of same-sex marriage.

$20,000 is the full weight of the corporation? This is McDonald's we're talking about; they could have easily given $20,000,000 if they wanted. That's pocket change to them. In fact, in the first quarter of 2008 alone McDonald's reported earnings in excess of $945,000,000, a sizable increase over the same period from the previous year (so much for the AFA's boycott). In light of this, $20,000 is hardly the "full weight" of the corporation! In fact, I don't think they're doing enough. They ought to give at least $1,000,000 to the NGLCC next time around. $20,000 barely even qualifies as a token gesture.

McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner said the company will promote issues they approve. "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world...and we do."

Good for Jim Skinner. Let's see McDonald's do more next time. After all, their contribution to NGLCC represented 0.0002% of their profits. That means that the Quarter Pounder combo meal that I bought for dinner last night after receiving Wildmon's latest "Dear Manmeat" epistle, which cost $5.66, contributed about a hundredth of a penny to combating the fear, hatred and ignorance promulgated by organizations like the AFA. That hardly seems like much in consideration of eating such crummy food for a good cause. I'm not about to eat 100 spongy, flavorless Quarter Pounders to contribute a mere penny. I mean, I could just write a check directly to NGLCC, but then I don't get the pleasure of doing exactly the opposite of what some bunch of fundamentalist is trying to order people to do, and I don't get to take a picture like this:



I can't afford the $100 membership fee for the NGLCC and they don't appear to solicit small contributions of $5.00 at a time, so I guess I'll just have to choke down a bad burger every so often and take a photo to show my support for the outlandish notion that gay people deserve equal treatment under the law. Or I can preferentially patronize the numerous other companies that support them, including UPS, Capital One (hey Don Wildmon... what's in your closet?), Albertson's Supermarkets, Merck, Century 21, Johnson and Johnson, Continental Airlines, Burger King, IBM, American Express, Motorola (I already have a Motorola cell phone), American Airlines, Coors Brewing, Avis, OfficeMax, Xerox, Shaws (I already shop there), Cisco... well, the list just goes on and on.

In fact, looking at this list of companies that NGLCC counts among its corporate partners, I'd be willing to bet that at least a few of them contribute more than McDonald's does with its measly $20,000. I'd also bet that Wildmon and his Wild Bunch/AFA are contributing much more than I am to the NGLCC with my purchase of a Quarter Pounder. Good for you, AFA members!

Next time, I'm getting a Whopper.

Sphere: Related Content

Four Years of Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts

An article from the New York Times and appearing in this morning's Worcester Telegram and Gazette provides a sketch of the number and state of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts after four years of it being legal here.

Gays, lesbians discover marriage is mixed bag
By Pam Belluck THE NEW YORK TIMES

Four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay couples to marry, there have been blissful unions, painful divorces and everything in between...

As same-sex marriage begins in California, Massachusetts's experience may offer hints of what is to come. For example, after an initial euphoric rush to the altar, the number of gay weddings in Massachusetts fell sharply, and has declined each year since. Of the more than 10,500 same-sex couples married here since May 17, 2004, 6,121 wed in the first six months. There were 2,060 weddings in 2005; 1,442 in 2006; and 867 in the first eight months of 2007, the most recent data show...

The census recorded 23,655 same-sex households in Massachusetts in 2006...

Nearly two-thirds of the weddings have been lesbian marriages... more same-sex married couples of both sexes are older — nearly a third are in their 40s...

"It's been a mixed bag," said Jacob Venter, a 44-year-old child psychiatrist... "Nothing turns out the way you imagine," Venter said. "There are no role models for gay marriage..."

"I feel totally different inside my skin," said Linda Bailey-Davies, 62, who married her longtime partner, Gloria Bailey-Davies, 67. With marriage, she said, "I felt legitimate in the world..."

"It makes me completely think differently about the relationship," said Lance Collins, 38, a colorist at a Boston hair salon...

but his partner does not want to marry. "I know he cares about me quite a bit," Collins said. "I just think he doesn't want to."

Collins said he believes his partner is his ideal match because he "gets as excited about seeing me as I get about seeing him," because "sometimes he'll do my laundry and fold it the way I like it," and because "he makes my coffee really well — one Equal with just a tablespoon of fat-free half-and-half..."

The article points up well how similar gay and not-gay people really are. More gay women have gotten married than have gay men, for example. Could it be that gay men and straight men both are more gun shy about commitment than are women overall?

Some of these marriages are working out, some of them aren't. That sounds familiar, too.

I think I'm beginning to see what those who are viscerally opposed to same-sex marriage have been so worried about, and it has nothing to do in the end with some metaphysical mechanism by which the marriage of one couple can alter the commitment of another unrelated pair. No, I think for a lot of the Matt Barbers of the world, the worry runs much deeper.

Maybe they're just scared that aside from their preferences in selecting a partner, it's turning out that gay people aren't significantly different from straight ones. I mean, these people are supposed to be demonic and wicked and doing all sorts of awful perverse things, working some sort of spell over we heterosexuals to turn us all into stereotypically mincing androgynes and cause churches to burst into flame and raping and pillaging their way across our cultural landscape, and here they are being just like us. Here they are worried about working on their relationships and compromising with their partners and making commitments and being afraid to make commitments and keeping in mind how their partners like their coffee.

If the nefarious scapegoats turn out to be like everybody else, then upon whom will the Concerned Women of America vent their spleens? At whom will Pat Robertson be able to point next time there's a mass murder and say, "We're being punished for what those people did?" Whatever is poor Don Wildmon going to do with his American Family Association if it turns out that the "homosexual agenda" isn't much more than wanting to be able to settle down, collect the same perks and penalties that other couples have long gotten, and then spend the rest of their lives getting old together and having the occasional argument over the bills and how to decorate the living room... or not succeeding and getting the same divorces that about half of all straight couples wind up getting? How can there be an "us" if there is no "them?" Won't somebody please think of Fred Phelps; what happens to the poor guy if the issue upon which he's practically built his whole life goes away and he has to get a real job? It's an American tragedy in the making!

It's so hard to find someone to hate these days, after all. Dark-skinned people can vote and one might even be elected president within the year. Antisemitism is just passé. Beating up the Amish is frowned upon. If it turns out that gay people are just like everyone else — just as happened with Jews and Blacks and Italians at various points in America's long history of not liking people who were somehow "different" — then what's left? It's so hard to pick the people who like spicy food out of a crowd...

Sphere: Related Content

A "Dear Manmeat" Letter from Don: John McCain is His Knight in Shining Armor

I finally got my anticipated "Dear Manmeat" letter from the American Family Association about the horrors (horror! shock! terror!) of gay marriage in California. It took Don Wildmon and his band of not-so-merry men a full five days to draft this thing. I'm not sure why; it's rather short and particularly limited in scope. It's not particularly well-written and the logic of it escapes me entirely. Still, the important thing is that Don still has hopes for me, even after I broke his heart three months ago.

Even compared to other AFA "Dear Manmeat" emails I get from Wildmon, though, this one is bizarre. And here it is:

Sen. McCain is the one person who should lead the battle to protect traditional marriage!

Sen. McCain needs to lead the way in promoting a federal marriage amendment

May 19, 2008

Dear Manmeat,

As you know, the California Supreme Court has legalized homosexual marriage. This happened despite the fact that voters in California passed Proposition 22 with 61.4 percent of the vote. Proposition 22 defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The recent 4-3 ruling, if allowed to stand, would destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years. It would lead to the logical conclusion of the following:

• Legalization of polygamous and other aberrant unions as "marriages"
  
• Legalization of marriage between an adult parent and adult child
  
• Legalization of group marriage
  
• Overturn all the marriage laws in the other 49 state

Take Action!

• Send a message to Sen. John McCain asking him to strongly support a federal marriage amendment making marriage legal only between one man and one woman. Sen. McCain has said in the past he supports marriage only between one man and one woman. But he voted against the federal amendment when it was voted on in the Senate. Such an amendment would override the legalization of homosexual marriage by the liberal California Supreme Court. It is time for Sen. McCain to take a stand for marriage!
  
  
• Please forward this to everyone on your list. Senator McCain needs to hear from every American who supports traditional marriage.

Ironically enough, this particular epistle from Wildmon seems rather divorced from reality in any number of ways.

First, what the California Supreme Court ruled was that the Prop 22 was unconstitutional. It doesn't matter that it was passed by some particular percentage by a popular vote. The will of majorities is not absolute in American government; the law of the land is the constitution, whether at the federal or state level, and the proper role of the judicial branch of government is the interpretation of constitutional law. If a proposition is contrary to a state constitution, it is the duty of the courts to say so and thus to rule against that proposition.

For all of their protestations about being persecuted, I wonder if the American sharia advocates would be so in favor of mob rule were they not possessed of the notion that they made up most of the mob. I don't wonder for long, though, because the answer to that is self-apparent.

That marriage has been defined in any one way "for thousands of years" is, of course, simply not true. There have been numerous forms of marriage throughout history, including child marriage, same-sex marriage and polygynous marriage. The real statement that Wildmon is trying to make is that marriage has been defined as "one man and one woman" by his favorite group which, of course, includes himself. That's not really true, either, but it sounds good to people who have no knowledge of the history of such things. In fact, the group to which Wildmon and the AFA belong hasn't existed for thousands of years at all; they bear very little resemblance even to early Christianity. Strictly speaking, literalist and fundamentalist Christianity didn't get it's start until 300 years ago or less except among some very small, self-isolating ascetic sects in the Old World, and even those sects denied worldly things entirely and so didn't involve themselves in political aims.

The next part of the letter is particularly mind-boggling, though. It makes the claim that the bullet items are the "logical conclusion" of allowing members of the same gender to marry, but it makes no statements as to why this should be so. There's nothing logical about it; it's nothing more than a series of assertions. How allowing same-sex marriage leads to allowing incestuous marriage certainly isn't clear. What the California court has stated is that there's no compelling interest for the state to prevent same-sex marriage, not that there will be no more rules about who can marry whom. It introduces no new exceptions to existing law, but only extends existing laws to cover all people in the state equally. It does nothing to change marriage law itself.

Nor does anyone appear to be making waves that there should be such changes. Here in Massachusetts, same-gender marriage has been legal for four years. If there are advocates of incest or state-recognized group marriage using that fact here as a basis for their arguments, they must be either very few in number or operating under some sort of deep cover. I suspect the former case. Despite four years of same-sex marriage in this state, the marriage laws of not one single other state have been overturned, nor even altered. Even neighboring states still have the same marriage laws they've has since long before 2004.

Based on precedent, on history, and on the rule of law, then, we can draw but a single conclusion from the American Family Association's latest diatribe. That is, they have no compunction against lying to their followers and then dressing those lies up as logic. What this letter represents is nothing like logic and nothing like inference based upon evidence. It represents nothing but a most cynical manipulation and an attempt to inspire fear for the end of gathering up a frightened peasant mob based upon the premise that a commitment made between two consenting adults of legal age in one state can have some effect upon those in other states who, in truth, have no personal stake whatsoever in that commitment. How the sowing of such discord escapes definition as evil by those who believe themselves to be concerned with morality is beyond me, but it certainly speaks to how twisted the whole concept of morality has become in early 21^st century America.

The AFA tells another whopper when it characterizes the California Supreme Court as "liberal." While I'm not among those who consider that to be a dirty word, the fact of the matter is that six of the seven justices of that court were appointed by Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson and George Dukemejian. While they might not have been as draconian as Don Wildmon would prefer, none of them were liberals and neither are these justices. This is yet another cynical manipulation by people like those in the AFA leadership of their members who, unless they are long-time followers of California politics, could not be reasonably expected to know anything about the composition of California's courts anymore than it could be reasonably expected that I would have detailed knowledge of the courts in Iowa or Arkansas. The difference is that, as a skeptic, I wouldn't be prone to simply accepting as truth something told me by some self-appointed spiritual leader. The people under the AFA's fiefdom are looking precisely for someone to tell them what to do, a guru-for-Jesus to get them marching in lockstep. Such people will always find themselves at the wrong end of the manipulations of organizations like the AFA which are only too happy to collect the rubes' donations as they goose-step those minions off to the latest poll or petition to advance an agenda that holds no benefit at all for those poor, misled saps.

But why is John McCain the "one person who should lead the battle to protect traditional marriage"? McCain, while not inclined to support gay marriage, has already voted against a Constitutional amendment banning it and has stated that he's just fine with the idea of civil unions — no different from Obama or Clinton in this regard. Why target him and, more importantly, why pin all hope on him?

As much as the religious social radicals like to mouth support for a decentralized government and state self-rule, in truth they care nothing for such things. The reason they are targeting Senator John McCain is that he is the only Republican who stands a chance of becoming president, and the AFA is quite willing to abandon state self-determination in favor of the concentration of power at the federal level if that advances its agenda which is, in fact, nothing less than religious law in America. They would not hesitate to make homosexuality a federal crime if they could. They have protested loudly every time a state has repealed so-called sodomy laws. These are people who are not satisfied with Americans having their own ideas about how to conduct their lives; they've recently launched a campaign to ban adult movies from hotel rooms, for instance. Has anyone ever been forced to watch an adult movie, or to do so specifically to do so at a hotel?

What the AFA wants is, in fact, a puppet in the White House who will dictate proper behavior to Americans, a group that Wildmon's Inquisition holds in the utmost contempt insofar as they believe that Americans are incapable of exercising individual liberty in appropriate ways. This isn't a question of gay marriage and it isn't even ultimately a question of religion. The first has no impact upon those not themselves involved with it and the second of which managed to survive corruption and decadence far greater than anything ever conceived of in the modern world precisely because it is an individual choice, not a state-sanctioned and legally mandated mode of thought. In the end, this is a question of personal freedom. By sowing fear and irrational hatred, the AFA has as its goal the overturning of every single freedom that was reserved not only to the states but to individual citizens. What other purpose for things such as this being thrust in the face of visitors to the AFA's website:


They? Homosexuals, of course, is "they." What happens when they come to a town? A few good things, and nothing demonstrably bad. That's precisely what happens when gay marriage becomes a possibility, too, but the AFA needs that fear in order to subvert both free society and representative government. They don't want presidents and senators and states, they want a religious emperor. The AFA wants a pope to sit in Washington, DC, and they don't have a candidate now so they hope to force the creation of one in the person of John McCain. They want their glory days back, before the religious radicals lost their grip on federal power and before evangelicals and fundamentalists began to split. In the Evangelical Manifesto, there appears the following statement:

The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes “the regime at prayer,” Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests.

— page 15

Don Wildmon misses those "useful idiots" that he has lost and will continue to lose as the religious right fragments, as there is an awakening in America to the depredations upon liberty advocated by its flagging leadership, and as religious thought returns to its proper role of an inward searching rather than an outward grab for the power to force adherence with ancient laws that are no more properly applied to this country than would be the laws of some other nation. To counter this, the AFA seeks to create an environment of fear and to conflate the theological with the secular and the posit any outcome other than the one they desire as some sort of disaster.

Those who fall for such hype are still with us, but in the end they will for the most part pass into obscurity. Sooner or later, the people who read Wildmon's ridiculous epistles to the True-Believers will find something that, to them, points out the ongoing manipulation. Sooner or later, there's going to be a larger awakening, and that will be the rousing of freedom against religious tyranny that cloaks itself as an attempt to tell people what is best for them. Nobody likes to be lied to, and those deceived eventually notice the deceit. All that needs happen is for enough people to ask a simple question, and the AFA will pass away. What does the AFA actually do that strengthens families instead of targeting and so seeking to weaken some of them?

Sphere: Related Content

A Little Joy Creeps Into America: Everyone Can Get Married in California

30 days from now, gay couples will be able to get married in California. The California Supreme Court has handed down the decision to overturn that state's ban on gay marriage. People who love one another and who happen to be of the same gender will now be able to do what people of opposite genders have always been able to do in California. The court appears to have used an increasingly rare tool called reason in making its decision:

"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage," George said.

Some of you who are old enough may remember when reason was commonly applied to the question of people's rights in a society that styles itself as just. This was a relatively common practice for some time until the more recent trend of applying personal fears and distaste elevated to a social level, a procedure often based on books written by people whose idea of "justice" was using rocks to bash in the skulls of people of whom they didn't approve (e.g., Leviticus).

Ed Harrington, the general manager of the [San Francisco] city's Public Utilities Commission, has lived with his partner for 35 years. In 2004, he performed marriage ceremonies for about 40 same-sex couples.

"You wait for this your whole life," said Harrington, who said he planned to call his partner and say, "I love you. What more do you say on a day like this?"

Why, that promiscuous bastard! How dare he belittle normal marriage by putting he and his partner of the past 35 years on the same footing as couples who have been together half as long. Clearly, it's not possible for two people of the same gender to love one another in the same way that those of opposite genders do.

I wish Ed Rehmus had lived to see today. I also wish that there weren't a bunch of moon-faced assassins of joy waiting in the wings for their chance to once again tear people's hearts to shreds in the name of their twisted, bloodthirsty deity. You know, the same one who tells them to stone people in the streets and once got some doddering goatherd to nearly slit his son's carotid artery:

The celebration could turn out to be short-lived, however. The court's decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid...

Liberty Counsel, which represented the group Campaign for California Families before the court in arguing for the state law, denounced the ruling and said it would ask the justices to stay its effect until after the November election.

None of those signatures are valid. Not a single one, because it's none of their business. It isn't their place to impose their idea of what a family is on anyone else. It has nothing to do with them. These people who push these petitions and those who sign them so that they can insert themselves between two people whom they've never met aren't valid people. And isn't it all cozy and Orwellian and ironic (sarcastic? sadistic?) that this organization working it's tuchis off to interfere with other people's lives calls itself the Liberty Counsel? What they want is exactly the opposite of liberty. I suppose that if their petitions fail they can always find plenty of rocks to throw.

For all their bleatings about how gay people marrying one another weakens "traditional marriage," they've yet to explain why the only state in which same-sex marriage is legal has the second lowest divorce rate in the country (2.2% in Massachusetts, unchanged since gay marriage became legal in 2004) while a state like Arkansas which, as far as I know is big on "traditional values," has a rate nearly three times that (6.0% as of 2005). It must be all those people from Arkansas who get a divorce and flee to Massachusetts to turn gay, I suppose.

Has Don Wildmon sent me a "Dear Manmeat" letter about this yet? I can't wait to get home and find out. He must be frothing at the mouth by now, no doubt praying for earthquakes and large jetliners slamming into buildings. They're so much more efficient at making the streets run with the blood of the disbelievers than are old-fashioned rocks.

Sphere: Related Content

Supporting the Homosexual Business Lobby at a McDonald's in Worcester

This is me supporting the "gay agenda" for lunch at a McDonald's in Worcester, MA.

I normally avoid eating at McDonald's, but Don Wildmon and the American Family Association convinced me to eat there today. I might eat there again tomorrow, too.

This Quarter Pounder is for you, AFA. If it meant that gay people could have every single right, privilege and responsibility that straight people do, I'd eat this crap every single day for the rest of my life.

Burgers over bigotry, baby.

Sphere: Related Content

AFA Has a Beef with McDonald's: Another "Dear Manmeat" Letter

I received another "Dear Manmeat" letter from Don Wildmon in this morning's email. I suppose he's accepted that I'm never going to make his dreams come true, but now he wants me to send email to my local McDonald's or something and ask them why they're supporting something called the "gay business agenda."

I'm not exactly sure how the "gay business agenda" differs from the "straight business agenda," though. Maybe something about a place where teenagers spend much of their day slipping meat between buns is making him uncomfortably tingly in his naughty bits. I'm sure it's a personal thing judging by the tone of the email I received:

McDonald's CEO: Company will put full resources behind gay agenda
McDonald's has signed on to a nationwide effort to promote "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures.

Dear Manmeat,

According to McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner, McDonald’s will aggressively promote the homosexual agenda. In remarks on McDonald's Web site concerning the company becoming a member of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), Skinner wrote: "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world … and we do."

The company gave an undisclosed amount of money to the NGLCC in return for being recognized as a major promoter of the homosexual agenda. In return, NGLCC placed Richard Ellis, vice president of communications of McDonald’s USA, on the NGLCC Board of Directors.

Ellis was quoted as saying: "I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. I share the NGLCC's passion for business growth and development within the LGBT community, and I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

McDonald's refused to comment to World Net Daily on the placement of its executive on the board of the "gay" advocacy organization but did send an e-mail confirming the corporation's support for the agenda of the homosexual business lobby.

"McDonald's is indeed a Corporate Partner and Organizational Ally of NGLCC. Our vice president of U.S. communications, Richard Ellis, was recently elected to its board of directors," said Heidi M. Barker, senior director of media relations for McDonald’s. NGLCC describes itself as promoting the LGBT community first and always, including same sex marriage.

NGLCC gives credit to sponsors such as McDonald's for its financial and other support that helps in its work. "Through the commitment of our corporate partners, the NGLCC has been able to advance the ideas and causes of the LGBT business community," the Chamber said.

Take Action
Send an e-mail to McDonald's

I've never been a big fan of McDonald's myself. I find their food to be bland, mushy, awful stuff that I'll only eat in a pinch. For the next couple of weeks, though, I'm going to make it a point to have lunch there a few times. Promoting equal opportunity for all people is something I can and will support, even if it means lowering my standards for a few days. I would encourage readers of this blog to do the same.

The email link at the end of Wildmon's letter will take you to a form on the AFA's website that has a pre-written email to be sent to the CEO of McDonald's. I clicked through and changed that text to one supporting McDonald's decision not only to stand up for equal rights, but against the fundamentalist nuttery of the AFA and their homoerotically-aroused chairman, Don "Make My Dreams Come True on Saturday Night" Wildmon. Again, please take a moment to do the same. I don't know if the AFA pre-screens the emails coming from that page somehow, but even if they do, having a few thousand extra emails to screen will make their lives harder. In fact, please pass the word around and encourage others to send supportive emails to McDonald's through that link.

The "homosexual business agenda?" What exactly is that? It's code; anything a gay person does, in the tiny minds of Wildmon and his followers, is automatically different from what a non-gay person does. Somehow, being gay imparts some weird essential quality to everything one touches, apparently. This is code, of course, for "exterminate gay people." Wildmon and his bunch simply want them to disappear, to go away quietly somewhere and drop dead. In fact, here's the verbiage from the e-mail that the AFA wants people to send to McDonald's:

I am surprised to learn that McDonald's has decided to put their entire corporate strength behind the promotion of the homosexual agenda. I'm asking McDonald's to remain neutral in the culture war. Your efforts should be in providing the finest fast food products possible, not in a political battle - especially helping promote an aberrant and destructive behavior.

This is, of course, almost entirely Orwellian. The AFA doesn't see anyone as "neutral in the culture war." You're either with them or against them, and what they're demanding McDonald's do in this very e-mail is to stand with them. After all, as the e-mail points out, this is war.

For lunch today, I'm getting a quarter pounder. I don't relish the thought, and I'm not generally a fan of McDonald's practices, but for a couple of weeks I'll make an exception. For today, since there's a "war" on, I'll shell out a couple of bucks to pay for some ammo. Right now, it's burgers vs. bigotry, and I'd rather eat a crappy hamburger than even for one moment play along — even unintentionally — with a fundamentalist would-be dictator.

Sphere: Related Content

Don Wildmon Wants Me to Make His Dream Come True on Saturday Night

By now, everybody is aware that there's a good chance that one's favorite right-wing militant fundamentalist Christian nutjob is gay. It happens a lot, and as I've said before, I don't care about the being gay part, just about the reaction-formation hypocrisy part. If you're gay, be gay and don't hate yourself and all the other gay people for it. This goes for Ted Hagee as much as Benny Hinn (I mean, c'mon, if Benny Hinn isn't gay then Elton John is a breeder!)

Still, I wasn't really prepared for the steamy proposal of man-on-man action I received yesterday from the American Family Association's Don Wildmon. It's so blatant that I had to reproduce it as a screen capture lest nobody believe that I received this email signed by Wildmon and addressed... well... the salutation is the only part I'll reproduce. I don't think the rest of the content would be suitable for any children that might wander by here. Won't somebody think of the children?

It's not every day I get an email from the head of one of the country's largest theocratic social engineering organizations addressing me as "Manmeat" and telling me that I can make his dreams come true on Saturday night. The screenshot has been cropped and resized to fit in this format, but it's otherwise reproduced exactly from the email I received, which I note is signed in a most familiar way. The email is apparently from just "Don." Not only that, but the guy wants me to forward the email to my friends and family. Clearly, not only is Wildmon coming out of the closet at last, but he wants the whole world to know about it.

Now, I can understand Don's lust for me. I am, after all, a hunkahunka hot mycologist. In fact, for the majority of people who read this blog I am almost certainly the sexiest mycologist they know. If you ever caught a glimpse of me out in the forest under the hot sun, the sweat glistening on my hairless pate as I scraped a resupinate off a decaying tree stump, you'd want me, too. I can't help having been cursed from birth with this great fungal magnetism. I can even appreciate that Don wants me to make his dream come true on the eve of my birthday. It's kind of sweet.

Still, there are a few problems here. First, I'm just not into guys in that way. Second, I'm very happy with the partner I have in my life and she wouldn't be happy if I were to make an exception regarding the first problem for my little Donsy-Wonsy. Third, I think Don should really be more concerned with what would happen to his reputation if he and I and a bottle of massage oil were to be found naked together in a motel room on a Saturday night. I mean, look what happened to Ted Haggard! Don't these guys ever learn?

So while I appreciate the leader of the AFA offering me the opportunity to make his dream come true on Saturday night, I'm going to just have to pass, even though, as Wildmon concludes in his steamy little email,

I am thrilled because we are using TV and the Internet to spread the truth that the mainstream media so often ignores. Yes, this is a first step--a small first step. But it is a beginning. We can take this beginning and let it grow to become a mighty tool for the Lord.

How you make it grow to become a mighty tool is your business, Don, and I have no problem with it. That you want to make the media stop ignoring it and put it on TV and the Internet is a little weird, but whatever you're into. Still, all things considered, I must pass on the opportunity to "make your dream come true" on Saturday night. This is one "Action Alert" that's never going to happen.

Besides, you're making LL jealous.

Sphere: Related Content

Don Wildmon and AFA: They Really Are Insane

Don Wildmon sent me an email yesterday. I was all excited when I got it, too. I thought that it was going to be one of those cutesy electronic Valentine's Day cards, that he was finally going to proclaim his undying love for me and we were going to ride off into the sunset and live happily every after together.

My hopes were dashed, though, when I opened the mail and discovered this nugget of nutiness instead:

TV LAND flippantly disrespects God and Christians

Send an email to TV Land president Larry Jones, letting him know you are offended that TV Land so easily disrespects Christians by belittling their faith.

Dear Manmeat,

The TV Land network has a new feature starting this Saturday (Feb. 16) called "OHMIGOD, That's so 80's weekend." The series features movies from the 1980's. "OHMIGOD" is an irreverent exclamation for "Oh, my God!"

The promotional ad is playing on the television broadcast and on their website at www.tvland.com. (WARNING: If you visit their website, the ad plays automatically.)

I can't tell you in words how offensive it is to listen to the advertisement for this new show as they must say "OHMIGOD" five times in 30 seconds.

Disrespect for Christians and God have gone on for some time with this phrase, but now we have a network that feels it appropriate to name an entire program series with this phrase.

All I can say about it is... OHMIGOD! Is the irony lost on these raving fundamentalist fanatics that they themselves have used the "disrespectful" phrase "OHMIGOD" three times in a mere five sentences? It took me less than 30 seconds to read them. If "disrespect for Christians and God" is a function of the rate at which the phrase is used, then I would have to conclude from the email that the American Family Association is more disrespectful of God and Christians than TVLand.

Of course, arguing that OHMIGOD is disrespectful as opposed to "Oh my God" is way wacky nonsense. Changing a Y to an I is blasphemy! The letter I is the work of Satan! Huh?

I guess Wildmon just ran out of good things to be angry about this week and had to find something that would show his followers that he hasn't lost his position as spokesman for the Wrathful Jesus Brigade. Must keep those donations rolling in. I can only imagine the staff meeting where they decided to pick on TV Land this week. "Quick... we need something... what do we have?"

The scary part? These lunatics have some degree of influence over politics in America. The funny part? They think that chasing after a cable TV network for uttering a three-word phrase too quickly in the title of a TV show is going to increase anyone's respect for the religion they're trying to cram down everybody's throat.

Personally, I think they're just jealous that their Muslim counterparts in Saudi Arabia get to execute a witch. Nobody ever lets Christian fanatics burn witches anymore. It's just not fair! Religious discrimination!!!!!

Sphere: Related Content

Meanwhile, in a Different Part of the State of Disenlightenment

Hey kids!

Do you like the circus?

Well, if you're going to be in Orlando, Florida in less than two weeks, you can see one! It's a three-ring circus, no less, with the ringers being Don Wildmon, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich! It's the sorriest show on earth! It's the...

---

Rediscovering God in America Conference

with special guests

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

and

Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee

More than 500 pastors from across Florida will be there! While the event is designed for pastors, it is available to all who sign up.

---

Who knows, maybe some of the school board members from Taylor County will be on hand to explain how the universe was formed!

Is there anybody left who doubts that the election of Mike Huckabee would be one giant step toward government by theology? Well, if you still do, click here to reserve your space, even though it's a webcast. But you have to be registered to access it, because the American Family Association can't have just anyone watching their webcast. Besides, how are they going to add you to their mailing list otherwise?

Sphere: Related Content

Flavors of Fundamentalism II: American Family Association Decries the Sins of Old Navy

Meanwhile, a bit closer to home, the American Family Association is off on another Christian Consumer Crusade, this time against those Satanists at Old Navy. Granted, I've never bought anything there myself because I don't care for their stuff, but implying that Old Navy is anti-Christian simply because they don't use the word "Christmas" enough for Don Wildmon's tastes is a bit of a stretch. Still:

Old Navy, Gap and Banana Republic are owned by the same company. And all three boycott Christmas. At these stores, Christmas isn't allowed because a handful of non-Christians are offended. Old Navy doesn't want to offend non-Christians. But they sure don't worry about offending Christians.

They will take your money, but they will not recognize Christmas.

Old Navy doesn't sell Christmas gifts. They sell "holiday" gifts. They don't close their stores on Christmas. They close on "holiday." They don't observe "Christmas morning," they observe "holiday morning." They don't wish customers a "Merry Christmas." They wish them a "happy holiday." Old Navy boycotts Christmas.

Old Navy has been boycotting Christmas for years. And despite thousands and thousands of requests to recognize Christmas, they refuse to do so. In fact, Old Navy is so adamant about boycotting Christmas that they have blocked incoming e-mails requesting they recognize Christmas.

When an Old Navy store manager was asked if the word "Christmas" was used in his store, he answered: "We have a lot of Christmas gifts in our stores, but the word 'Christmas' is not used here. Everything is 'holiday.'"

Old Navy even makes a joke of Christmas by offering video greetings called "Happy Chrismukkah."

— Source: AFA Action Alert, 12/20/07

Oh, the horror! Those swine at Old Navy are wishing people a happy holiday, and some fundamentalists find this offensive — even though there's nothing at all anywhere in their own religious texts that mention a holiday called "Christmas" or even specify the date of Christ's birth. I find the admonition that it's OK to offend others but not to offend said fundamentalists particularly revealing of the attitude of these people that other religions don't deserve the same consideration as their own.

It's even more revealing that combining the Christian "Christmas" with the Jewish "Hanukkah" into one word, "Chrismukkah," should be such a terrible sin in the eyes of the AFA leadership. How dare Old Navy besmirch AFA's pure, white holiday by combining its name with that of a holiday observed by those filthy heathen Jews! Hanukkah isn't a real holiday celebrated by real Americans, and clearly cannot be on par with something with the word "Christ" in it. Tragedy and blasphemy! The fact that this proposed boycott, along with just about everything else about Christmas in the modern world, is centered on consumerism and money eludes AFA entirely, I suppose. Money, in other words, isn't contaminating to their ideology — Judaism certainly is. Ah, American fundamentalism, you've got to love it. There's always money involved.

Old Navy probably will have a lousy holiday season. So will other retailers; retailers of every stripe have already experienced disappointing sales leading up to the holiday shopping season and are offering deep discounts in hopes of luring in last-minute shoppers. We're in the midst of a credit crunch, inflation across the boards and rising energy costs that are simply leaving most Americans with less money to spend on holiday gifts. I have no doubt, however, that if and when Old Navy reports a disappointing Xmas, the AFA will trumpet the effectiveness of its call for a boycott.

On the other hand, I have been thinking about buying a pair of checkered fleece pants with reindeer on them. Maybe I should make the trip to Old Navy and get some cheap crap!

Sphere: Related Content

Greetings to the AFA Readers

If you look down at the bottom of any page on this blog, you'll notice a little icon for a service called SiteMeter. SiteMeter is a useful tool that lets me see where people are coming from when they get here, how they found the blog, how many hits and page views I get per day, etc. It doesn't tell me anything more specific than that; it just gives the subscriber a general overview.

As of this morning, it seems I've picked up a couple of readers coming from the American Family Association's domain, afa.net, located down in Tupelo, MS. Greetings and welcome to Hyphoid Logic. I'm glad that you found yesterday's entry about the silliness of your proposed boycott of PetSmart for not using the word "Christmas" enough on their website and invite you to explain how evil and un-American PetSmart is in light of what reader Anti-ethnocentric mentioned yesterday in a comment about how that company does annual charity work by having customers' pets photographed with Santa Claus.

Keep on readin', AFA members! I'm delighted to see that you've found my little blog and look forward to the interactions between yourselves and the usual readers here.

Sphere: Related Content